HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-01 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 1 of 35
Regular Meeting
June 01, 2026
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual
teleconference at 5:30 p.m.
Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker
Present Remotely: None
Absent: None
Call to Order
Mayor Veenker called the meeting to order. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun called the roll and
noted all Councilmembers were present.
Mayor Veenker noted that the meeting was the first of the Council's final 3 meetings before the
summer recess. Assuming all scheduled business is completed, the Council would recess after
its June 15 meeting and reconvene on August 10. Due to the 2026 calendar and the Labor Day
holiday, the August meeting schedule was adjusted to August 10, August 17, and August 24 to
avoid a 3-week gap between meetings.
Special Orders of the Day
1. Proclamation Honoring June 2026 as LGBTQIA+ Pride Month
Mayor Veenker recognized June 2026 as LGBTQIA+ Pride Month and highlighted the City's first
Pride celebration, scheduled for June 7 at King Plaza. Recognition was given to the youth
organizers and community partners who helped plan the event. An updated Pride flag had been
displayed on the dais in recognition of Pride Month.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims read the proclamation titled "Honoring June 2026 as LGBTQIA+
Pride Month."
Iris Blanchet, a youth organizer of the Pride celebration, expressed gratitude for the
opportunity to help plan the event before leaving for college. It was conveyed that the event
has been meaningful to many local youth and reflected a sense of inclusion, empathy, and
support within the Palo Alto community.
Mayor Veenker invited individuals who participated in planning the Pride event to join Council
at the dais for a photo.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 2 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
NO ACTION
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Ed Shikada reported that there were no agenda changes.
Public Comment
David C., speaking on behalf of Carbon Free Palo Alto, urged the City to reconsider the planned
utility upgrades at Buena Vista Mobile Park. The commenter advocated for an all-electric
approach, consistent with the original project concept, and expressed concerns that including
gas infrastructure would increase long-term costs, create future financial burdens for residents,
and undermine the City's health, safety, and greenhouse gas reduction goals. Support was
expressed for using available grant funding to facilitate electrification and avoid future
appliance replacement costs associated with anticipated air quality regulations.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Councilmember Lauing congratulated Police Chief James Reifschneider on his recent swearing-
in and noted the strong attendance and support shown at the ceremony.
Councilmember Burt highlighted a recent Palo Alto Community Foundation event focused on
youth mental health and well-being, noting participation by local youth and the announcement
of a $25,000 matching grant to support the allcove Center, in addition to the organization's
existing $100,000 contribution. Councilmember Burt requested that the meeting be adjourned
in memory of Clarence B. Jones, who was a longtime Palo Alto resident, personal attorney and
speechwriter for Martin Luther King Jr., and mentor to local youth. Mr. Jones's passing was
described as a significant loss to the community.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims thanked City staff, youth organizers, and community partners
for their efforts in planning the City's first Pride celebration, describing it as an all-hands-on-
deck effort. Information was shared regarding the June 7 event at King Plaza, including
performances, music, dance, drag, and community organization booths. Hamilton Avenue
between Bryant Street and Ramona Street would be closed to allow the community to gather
safely. Sponsors were acknowledged for their financial support of the event.
Vice Mayor Stone highlighted the kickoff of the Thursday Live event series on California Avenue
and reported strong attendance and community enthusiasm for the program. The next event
will be on June 25. The commencement of the Newell Road Bridge replacement project was
announced and described as the first step in the Reach 2 project. Reference was made to recent
approval of the SAFER Bay project following several years of planning and collaboration. Vice
Mayor Stone concluded by congratulating local graduates in advance of upcoming
commencement ceremonies.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 3 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
Mayor Veenker thanked Councilmember Lythcott-Haims for her contributions to planning the
City's first Pride celebration. Mayor Veenker reported on a recent visit to Palo Alto's sister city,
Linköping, Sweden, where opportunities were provided to share best practices and learn about
local government initiatives. The city's civic corporation was highlighted, which supports
housing and university housing efforts, and it was noted that Sustainability Manager Christine
Luong participated in separate meetings focused on sustainability practices in Linköping.
Study Session
2. Study Session on Flock Automated License Plate Recognition Technology; CEQA status –
categorically exempt.
Police Chief James Reifschneider introduced the study session on Flock Safety's Automated
License Plate Recognition (ALPR) technology. Slides and sample ALPR images were shown. Chief
Reifschneider explained that the system captures license plate information, vehicle
characteristics, and location data from vehicles traveling on public roadways and compares that
information against vehicles associated with criminal investigations, wanted persons, and
missing or endangered individuals. It was emphasized that the system captures vehicle
information rather than vehicle occupants or pedestrians and does not use facial recognition or
collect personal identifying information. A screenshot of the search interface was displayed to
illustrate vehicle- and location-based search capabilities. Additional slides were presented
describing system uses and benefits. Chief Reifschneider stated that ALPR supports real-time
alerts and criminal investigations by helping direct limited law enforcement resources,
providing access to historical vehicle data, and facilitating regional information sharing among
law enforcement agencies. Chief Reifschneider presented examples in which ALPR data
contributed to investigations involving crimes and missing or endangered individuals. Slides
were shown indicating that ALPR data had played an evidentiary role in at least 130 cases since
2024. Chief Reifschneider noted declines in residential burglaries, auto burglaries, and theft-
related losses during that period and stated that ALPR technology has been a significant
contributing factor. Additional slides addressed legal requirements, privacy protections, and the
City's use of Flock ALPR technology. ALPR use is governed by the City's surveillance technology
ordinance, a Council-approved surveillance use policy, and applicable state laws. Key
safeguards include authorized-user requirements, audit logs, limited law enforcement data
sharing, a 30-day data retention period, and compliance audits.
Chief Reifschneider reviewed the former nationwide lookup feature, noting that a subsequent
review found no searches by federal immigration agencies, no searches related to immigration
or reproductive health enforcement, and no targeted searches of Palo Alto data by out-of-state
or federal agencies. Actions taken by Flock Safety in response to concerns regarding the former
nationwide lookup feature were described, including enhanced compliance measures,
expanded audit tools, customer notifications, restrictions on data sharing, and disabling the
feature for California agencies. Additional safeguards implemented by the PAPD included
expanded audits, increased audit frequency, and publication of audit reports on the City's
website. Slides were presented summarizing regional use of Flock ALPR technology, including
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 4 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
deployments throughout Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. It was reported that more than
300 California law enforcement agencies currently use the technology. Chief Reifschneider
reviewed the City's contract with Flock Safety, including costs, grant funding, and termination
provisions. An update was provided regarding the independent review of the City's ALPR
program. Chief Reifschneider explained that the City engaged OIR Group to evaluate Flock
Safety's policies and the PAPD's internal practices and reported that a final review is expected
to return to the Council following the summer recess.
Public Comment:
1. Austin M., speaking on behalf of Sherry S., Kathryn, Brian E., Dan M., Kelley, Siobhan S.,
and Anaya A., and representing Indivisible Palo Alto Plus and the Safety Over
Surveillance coalition, expressed concerns regarding privacy implications associated
with Flock ALPR technology. The commenter argued that ALPR systems enable the
systematic collection and aggregation of location data that can reveal personal
activities, associations, and travel patterns of individuals not suspected of criminal
activity. Concerns were raised regarding Flock Safety's business model, the potential
future use of aggregated data, and the possibility of expanded federal access to ALPR
information. Support was expressed for reconsidering the City's relationship with Flock
and prioritizing privacy protections.
2. Cara S., speaking on behalf of Linda F., Jesse S., Lisa B., Gabi K., and Stephanie C.,
identified herself as a longtime Palo Alto resident, municipal law attorney, co-leader of
Indivisible Palo Alto Plus's Immigration Rights Action Team, and member of the Safety
Over Surveillance Palo Alto coalition. The commenter thanked the Council for holding
the study session and engaging an independent police auditor (IPA) and expressed
appreciation for the PAPD's support of First Amendment activities. Concerns were
raised regarding the City's participation in a broader surveillance network with Flock,
including the effectiveness of existing safeguards, potential impacts on immigrant
communities, expansion of Flock's capabilities, pending legal challenges alleging
constitutional violations, and the lack of published studies demonstrating that the
technology reduces crime or improves case closure rates.
3. Tim M., speaking on behalf of Victor S., Linda B., Steve W., and Magdalena C., identified
himself as a member of the Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists of America and the
Safety Over Surveillance coalition. The commenter urged the City to discontinue its use
of Flock ALPR technology and questioned its effectiveness as a crime prevention tool,
arguing that most collected data relates to individuals not involved in criminal activity
and that license plate recognition systems can be circumvented by swapping license
plates. Concerns were raised regarding privacy impacts, the potential for erroneous law
enforcement actions, alleged Fourth Amendment implications, and Flock Safety's
business model. The commenter advocated for investing in housing, healthcare, food
assistance, and other community services as alternatives for improving public safety.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 5 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
4. Josh W., speaking on behalf of Chris C., Chris B., Michael R., Eddie G., and Eric B.,
identified himself as Vice President of the Palo Alto Police Officers' Association and
expressed support for the continued use of Flock ALPR technology. It was stated that
the system assists officers in locating stolen vehicles, identifying suspects, investigating
crimes, and finding missing persons, particularly when suspects travel into Palo Alto
from other jurisdictions. Reference was made to 139 patrol-level cases between January
2024 and February 2026 in which ALPR technology provided public safety benefits, as
well as a reported significant reduction in retail losses at Stanford Shopping Center. The
commenter characterized ALPR as an important investigative tool that complements
traditional police work and emphasized the importance of maintaining safeguards
related to policy, training, transparency, and accountability while continuing to utilize
effective crime-fighting technology.
5. Charlie W., speaking on behalf of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, expressed
support for the continued use of Flock ALPR technology. The commenter stated that the
system has improved public safety and enforcement efforts, citing examples involving a
stolen vehicle connected to an armed carjacking, organized retail theft investigations,
and Downtown restaurant burglaries. Reference was made to statistics indicating that
ALPR technology contributed to 64 incidents and 24 arrests in 2025.
6. Charles S. expressed concerns regarding the privacy implications of the City's ALPR
camera network and the sharing of collected data with other agencies. The commenter
stated that the technology could discourage participation in public activities and urged
the City to terminate its contract with Flock and remove or disable the cameras.
7. Fritz K. identified himself as a longtime Palo Alto resident and an attorney who reviews
software-as-a-service contracts. The commenter opined that concerns regarding Flock
Safety relate less to the City's policies and contractual provisions and more to the
company's own practices and incentives. Questions were raised regarding whether
sufficient oversight exists to evaluate Flock's actions and the commenter expressed
skepticism about the company's commitment to privacy protections.
8. Emily B., a resident of Palo Alto, stated that the primary justification for ALPR
technology is improved public safety but argued that available research does not
demonstrate significant overall crime reduction benefits. The commenter questioned
whether the technology meaningfully addresses the types of crimes most commonly
experienced in Palo Alto.
9. Jim expressed opposition to the City's use of ALPR technology, arguing that it infringes
on Fourth Amendment privacy rights. The commenter distinguished ALPR data
collection from the voluntary use of cell phones, stating that individuals have greater
control over personal data associated with cell phones. Concerns were raised regarding
the collection of ALPR data without consent and the commenter urged the City to
discontinue use of the technology.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 6 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
10. Mariya stated that her experiences growing up in the Soviet Union shaped her concerns
about government surveillance. The commenter believed that ALPR technology creates
a database capable of revealing individuals' movements, associations, and activities and
contrasted that approach with traditional policing methods that focus on specific
suspects. Concerns were raised regarding impacts on privacy, freedom of association,
and the potential future use of collected data by government entities.
11. Matt S. urged the City to terminate its contract with Flock Safety, arguing that the
company cannot be trusted and that examples of the technology's effectiveness were
anecdotal rather than supported by statistical evidence. The commenter expressed
concern that outside agencies had conducted searches involving Palo Alto data despite
assurances regarding safeguards and contended that unsuccessful or undocumented
searches still raised privacy and accountability concerns. Reference was made to
potential federal access to ALPR data and the need for stronger protections against
unauthorized use.
12. Melissa D., founder of Indivisible Palo Alto Plus, expressed opposition to the City's
continued use of Flock ALPR technology. The commenter argued that vehicle data can
be linked to individuals and raised concerns regarding the use of ALPR systems in
connection with immigration enforcement, reproductive healthcare investigations, and
monitoring of protest activity. While expressing trust in local law enforcement, the
commenter voiced concerns about how surveillance infrastructure could be used in the
future and urged the City to terminate its contract with Flock.
13. Tricia D., a longtime Palo Alto resident, expressed opposition to the City's use of Flock
ALPR technology due to concerns about aggregated license plate data being combined
with other databases. The commenter raised concerns regarding potential misuse of
large-scale data collection by government entities and argued that future uses of the
technology could discourage civic participation and threaten individual privacy rights.
The Council was urged to discontinue the City's relationship with Flock.
14. David P. thanked Police Chief Reifschneider and Palo Alto police officers for their
service. Drawing on his experience working in a mental health clinic in San Francisco, the
commenter stated that attendance by Latino community members had declined
significantly due to concerns about federal immigration enforcement. The commenter
stated that even with policies prohibiting the sharing of information with ICE, many
community members do not trust the federal government and argued that the resulting
fear harms the community.
15. Leonor D. expressed concerns regarding the presence of Flock ALPR cameras in the
community and the potential sharing of collected data with federal agencies. The
commenter stated that the technology has contributed to fear within the community
and argued that sharing location data without consent infringes on constitutional rights
and the rule of law. Reference was made to participation in peaceful demonstrations
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 7 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
and other community gatherings and appreciation was expressed for support shown by
Councilmembers and other City officials at those events. The commenter urged the City
to discontinue its relationship with Flock.
16. Hilary S., a resident of Palo Alto, described organizing small groups to participate in
public demonstrations and expressed concerns about the presence of surveillance
cameras in public spaces. The commenter stated that the technology contributes to
feelings of unease and referenced prior interactions with law enforcement that affected
her perception of policing and surveillance.
17. Pierre L. expressed support for concerns raised by previous speakers and discussed
Flock Safety's business model and financial incentives. The commenter referenced the
company's valuation, revenues, camera network, and potential opportunities for future
federal contracts, arguing that the company benefits from the expansion of large-scale
surveillance systems.
18. Emma B. expressed concerns regarding Flock Safety's handling of data and stated that
the company has acted in ways that are inconsistent with community expectations and
policies. While acknowledging efforts to address concerns, the commenter argued that
existing safeguards have proven inadequate and raised concerns regarding oversight,
misuse of data, and the company's ability to responsibly manage sensitive information.
19. KBT expressed concerns regarding the use of AI in ALPR technology and argued that AI-
based systems can produce errors and inaccurate results. The commenter questioned
reliance on automated technology for law enforcement purposes and urged the City to
terminate its contract with Flock.
20. Ariel questioned comparisons between ALPR technology and traditional police
observation, arguing that the scale and permanence of camera-based surveillance
create different risks. The commenter expressed concern that the presence of ALPR
infrastructure could enable misuse in the future regardless of current policies or
practices and stated disappointment with the City's use of surveillance technology.
21. Hansel A., a Santa Clara resident, sociologist, migrant from Honduras, and former law
enforcement officer, referenced a letter submitted to the Council and believed that
research regarding the effectiveness of ALPR technology in reducing crime has produced
mixed results. The commenter stated that crime prevention does not require large-scale
data collection and referenced concerns regarding conditions in federal immigration
detention facilities. The commenter clarified that no claim was being made that any
specific technology was responsible for any specific harm.
22. Hamilton H. argued that the primary privacy concern associated with ALPR technology is
the retention and searchability of historical vehicle location data rather than real-time
alerts. The commenter suggested several policy alternatives, including limiting data
sharing with outside agencies, reducing data retention periods, and evaluating
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 8 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
alternative vendors with stronger privacy protections. The commenter characterized the
issue as a policy tradeoff between regional law enforcement collaboration and
enhanced privacy protections for residents.
23. Herb B. questioned whether ALPR data could be used to identify vehicle owners and
track individuals over time despite statements that personal information is not collected
by the system. The commenter expressed concerns regarding the retention and
aggregation of location data and argued that long-term monitoring of individuals'
activities and associations could implicate First Amendment rights.
24. Yudy D., a Palo Alto resident, thanked Police Chief Reifschneider for his analysis and
expressed support for a balanced approach to the use of ALPR technology. The
commenter stated that the technology has contributed to recovering stolen vehicles,
locating missing persons, and assisting with criminal investigations while acknowledging
concerns regarding privacy, oversight, and accountability. Support was expressed for
continued use of the technology with strong safeguards, transparency, regular reviews,
and ongoing evaluation of policies and outcomes.
25. Winter D. (Zoom) expressed opposition to surveillance technologies and cited historical
examples of alleged government surveillance abuses. The commenter referenced
personal experiences and concerns regarding monitoring of constitutionally protected
activities and argued that surveillance systems are inherently vulnerable to misuse.
Concerns were raised regarding Flock Safety's handling of issues related to data sharing
and notification practices and the commenter urged the City not to continue relying on
the technology.
26. Raadhi (Zoom), a Bay Area resident, urged the City to terminate its contract with Flock
Safety. The commenter expressed concerns regarding potential access to ALPR data
through legal processes and questioned the reliability of information provided by the
company. The commenter encouraged the City to independently evaluate evidence
regarding the effectiveness of ALPR technology and argued that the system does not
provide meaningful public safety benefits.
27. Batman (Zoom) expressed opposition to the City's continued use of Flock ALPR
technology and raised concerns regarding potential access to ALPR data by federal
immigration enforcement agencies. The commenter questioned the effectiveness of
existing oversight and audit mechanisms and believed that the technology poses risks to
community members. The commenter urged the City to terminate its relationship with
Flock.
Mayor Veenker thanked the public speakers for their comments and returned the discussion to
the Council. It was noted that the item was a study session intended to provide an opportunity
for questions, discussion, and feedback and that no formal action would be taken at this
meeting. The item will likely return to the Council in a couple of months.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 9 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
Councilmember Reckdahl asked how the City could be assured that Flock would not bypass
Council-imposed restrictions in the future as occurred with the nationwide lookup feature.
Chief Reifschneider responded that the PAPD has expanded the scope and frequency of its
audits and would now be able to detect a similar issue within 30 days. It was stated that the
Department is better positioned to identify future compliance concerns. Based on discussions
with Flock leadership, it is believed the prior issue resulted from inadequate oversight rather
than intentional misconduct.
Councilmember Reckdahl questioned what information is required for outside law enforcement
agencies to access Palo Alto ALPR data. Chief Reifschneider explained that agencies operating
under a data-sharing MOU have the same search capabilities as Palo Alto officers and can
search using vehicle characteristics and partial license plate information in connection with
criminal investigations.
Councilmember Reckdahl questioned the accuracy of ALPR technology and referenced concerns
regarding false detections. Chief Reifschneider stated that the system is reported to be more
than 99 percent accurate and emphasized that officers are required to visually verify a license
plate before initiating a vehicle stop based on an ALPR alert. It was explained that incidents
cited by public speakers involved camera and human error, noting that officers in those cases
had failed to perform the required verification.
Councilmember Reckdahl questioned how Flock's nationwide lookup feature was implemented
despite California laws restricting such data sharing. Chief Reifschneider responded that, based
on information provided by Flock to him, the company was growing rapidly and had focused
more heavily on product development and sales than on state-by-state legal compliance. It was
Chief Reifschneider's understanding that Flock has since increased its emphasis on legal
compliance and oversight.
Councilmember Reckdahl sought clarification regarding safeguards to prevent misuse of ALPR
technology by law enforcement personnel. Chief Reifschneider explained that the PAPD
conducts monthly audits of officer searches and noted that unauthorized use of ALPR data is
subject to significant administrative and criminal penalties, which could result in termination
and criminal prosecution under state law.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims emphasized that her concerns were not directed at PAPD and
acknowledged the value of ALPR technology in assisting criminal investigations and locating
missing persons. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims opined that the central issue is whether those
benefits outweigh privacy concerns and the potential for misuse of data by vendors or
government agencies. Concerns were raised regarding Flock's prior violation of California law,
the delay in the City's awareness of the nationwide lookup feature, the adequacy of
communication and oversight, and the company's broader role in developing large-scale
surveillance systems. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated that she is particularly concerned
about the potential impact of such systems on privacy rights and civil liberties and questioned
whether continued participation could contribute to a nationwide surveillance network.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 10 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
Vice Mayor Stone inquired whether PAPD has tracked measurable outcomes such as clearance
rates, recovery rates, suspect identification rates, or response times to evaluate the
effectiveness of ALPR technology. Chief Reifschneider responded that those statistics were not
available and acknowledged the difficulty of attributing overall crime trends to a single factor. It
was indicated that the PAPD instead relies on specific case examples demonstrating instances in
which Flock technology directly contributed to solving crimes, including serious violent
offenses.
Vice Mayor Stone asked what operational capabilities would be lost if Palo Alto discontinued its
use of Flock ALPR technology and whether alternative resources would be needed to maintain
current service levels. Chief Reifschneider responded that ALPR technology plays an important
role in complex, multijurisdictional investigations by helping law enforcement identify
connections between crimes occurring in different jurisdictions. A residential burglary
investigation was cited, in which ALPR data helped link suspects to dozens of burglaries across
multiple counties. Chief Reifschneider further noted the value of real-time alerts involving
stolen vehicles, which can assist in recovering those vehicles and help deter additional criminal
activity.
Vice Mayor Stone questioned whether the City retains control over the deployment of any
future Flock features beyond the ALPR capabilities currently authorized. Chief Reifschneider
confirmed that implementation of any new surveillance technology would require Council
approval through the City's surveillance technology process. Flock's Falcon cameras used by
Palo Alto were distinguished from Flock's Condor cameras, which are traditional surveillance
cameras with AI capabilities. It was reiterated that deployment of those technologies would
require Council direction.
Councilmember Lu inquired whether the scope of the IPA's review could include evaluating
alternatives such as limiting data sharing with outside agencies and reducing ALPR data
retention periods. Chief Reifschneider responded that the audit scope could be modified before
completion and stated that he expects the report to include an assessment of best practices
related to data retention and similar policy considerations. Councilmember Lu expressed
interest in evaluating the potential impacts of such changes on data sharing, regional
collaboration, and the effectiveness of the ALPR program and suggested that additional analysis
would be valuable.
Councilmember Lu expressed interest in developing additional metrics to evaluate the
effectiveness of ALPR technology and better understand the tradeoffs between public safety
benefits and privacy concerns. Councilmember Lu suggested reviewing cases in which Flock
data contributed to investigations to assess the extent of its impact and stated that such
analysis could help inform future policy decisions. Appreciation was expressed for the PAPD's
auditing and transparency practices and interest was expressed in future discussions regarding
regional collaboration and potential policy improvements.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 11 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
Councilmember Lauing commented on examples presented by the Police Department involving
missing and endangered persons and stated that the technology appeared to provide
identifiable public safety benefits. Councilmember Lauing inquired what information could have
been accessed through the nationwide lookup feature while Palo Alto data was included in the
broader network. Chief Reifschneider explained that the feature required a complete license
plate number and returned photographs associated with that plate, along with the date, time,
and location of each capture. It was stated that the Flock database does not contain personal
identifying information and that any additional information about a vehicle owner would
require access to separate law enforcement databases. Councilmember Lauing stated that the
explanation was helpful and reiterated concerns regarding how such information could be used
by federal immigration enforcement agencies.
Councilmember Lauing questioned what changes Flock Safety has made following the discovery
of the nationwide lookup feature and expressed concerns regarding the company's conduct,
oversight, and the lack of changes in company leadership. Chief Reifschneider responded that
Flock leadership has acknowledged a greater responsibility to ensure customers can use the
product in compliance with applicable laws. It was stated that the company appears to have
increased its focus on state-specific legal requirements and compliance.
Councilmember Burt thanked staff and members of the public for their input and stated that
several questions regarding the security, effectiveness, and oversight of the ALPR program
could potentially be addressed through the IPA's review. Concerns were expressed regarding
Flock leadership's response to criticism and whether the company could be trusted to
responsibly manage the technology. Councilmember Burt then requested additional
information regarding the scope of the planned independent audit and emphasized the
importance of Council oversight. Chief Reifschneider explained that staff is working with OIR
Group to develop the scope of work and noted that a contract extension will be brought
forward to allow the review to proceed. City Manager Shikada stated that staff would evaluate
opportunities for Council to receive additional information regarding the audit scope before the
review is finalized. Councilmember Burt reiterated his desire for Council to review the scope
before the audit begins and City Manager Shikada agreed to work with OIR Group to determine
how best to accomplish that.
Mayor Veenker acknowledged the benefits and concerns associated with ALPR technology and
stated that the issue requires further evaluation. Concerns were expressed regarding trust in
government institutions, technology companies, and AI, while recognizing the public safety
benefits described by the Police Department. Questions were raised regarding the information
required to conduct a Flock search and the process used to verify a legitimate law enforcement
purpose during audits. Chief Reifschneider explained that searches require entry of a
standardized FBI NIBRS offense type, a case number, and a reason for the search. Monthly
audits compare search activity against case records to verify a legitimate connection and
network audits verify compliance with required search fields and data-sharing agreements.
Interest was expressed in exploring whether future MOUs could require reciprocal auditing
practices by participating agencies. Chief Reifschneider responded that the City could revise its
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 12 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
MOUs and noted that Palo Alto has taken a leading role in developing such agreements with
Flock users.
Mayor Veenker inquired how ALPR searches are categorized in situations involving missing or
endangered individuals rather than criminal investigations. Chief Reifschneider explained that
the available offense types include categories such as missing and endangered persons and
suicidal subjects.
Mayor Veenker inquired where ALPR data is stored and whether the City's 30-day data
retention policy is independently verified. Chief Reifschneider explained that the data is stored
in encrypted cloud storage provided by Flock and that the PAPD does not maintain on-site
servers for the system. Chief Reifschneider stated that additional information regarding data
deletion verification could be provided by City IT staff. Mayor Veenker suggested that the issue
could be included within the scope of the independent audit.
Mayor Veenker expressed interest in understanding the consequences faced by Flock Safety in
connection with the nationwide data-sharing issue and requested additional information
regarding potential legal, contractual, and financial implications. Mayor Veenker expressed
interest in addressing City costs and potential contractual penalties for future violations and
indicated a desire to discuss those options when the matter returns to Council.
Councilmember Reckdahl inquired whether a data-sharing network limited to Santa Clara
County would provide sufficient investigative value. Chief Reifschneider responded that any
level of data sharing would be beneficial but stated that criminal activity frequently crosses
county boundaries, which makes broader regional participation valuable. Some investigations
involve offenders operating in multiple Bay Area counties and it was explained that limiting
data sharing to a smaller geographic area would reduce the effectiveness of the system. Chief
Reifschneider added that the PAPD is not committed to Flock as a vendor and would be open to
considering alternative providers if comparable options become available.
NO ACTION
Consent Calendar
Public Comment:
1. Emily R. spoke on behalf of Silicon Valley At Home regarding Item 4 and referenced a
joint letter submitted with Palo Alto Forward. The commenter urged the Council not to
indefinitely defer expansion of the Rental Registry Program or future consideration of a
rent stabilization ordinance and instead establish conditions that would trigger renewed
Council review. Support was expressed for the City's tenant protection efforts and data
was cited indicating that some households continue to experience significant rent
increases. The commenter stated that rent stabilization measures could provide
additional protections for vulnerable renters and encouraged the City to continue its
leadership on tenant protection policies.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 13 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
2. Anil B., representing the California Apartment Association, thanked staff for its work on
Item 4 and expressed support for the recommendation to discontinue further
consideration of rent stabilization. The commenter stated that additional rent
restrictions can make it more difficult for property owners to maintain older rental
properties and believed that state tenant protection laws under AB 1482 provide
appropriate safeguards through rent caps and just-cause eviction requirements. Support
was voiced for continuing to rely on the existing State framework.
3. Tim M. expressed support for retaining the Rental Registry Program and continuing
consideration of rent stabilization measures. The commenter stated that housing
policies should prioritize the needs of residents and argued that a rental registry
provides useful information. Support was expressed for measures intended to improve
housing affordability and tenant stability.
Mayor Veenker requested that Item 4 be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate
consideration. Vice Mayor Stone, Councilmember Lu, Councilmember Burt, and Councilmember
Lythcott-Haims concurred.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to approve Agenda
Item Numbers 3, 5-14 and to pull off the Consent Calendar Agenda Item Number 4.
MOTION PASSED ITEMS 3, 5-14: 7-0
3. Approval of Minutes from May 11 and May 18, 2026 Meeting
4. Recommendation from Policy and Services Committee to City Council to Indefinitely
Defer Both Expansion of the Rental Registry Program to Properties with Two or Fewer
Units and Further Consideration of a Possible Rent Stabilization Ordinance. CEQA:
Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Removed off Consent
Calendar and heard June 1, 2026.
5. Approval of and Authorization to execute Purchase Orders with Jensen Precast and
Oldcastle Infrastructure for the Purchase of Electric Utility Underground Boxes Not to
Exceed $800,000 per year, for a Total Aggregate Not-to-Exceed Amount of $4,000,000
for Five Years; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
6. Approval of Purchase Order C27197327 with Carahsoft Technology Corporation to
Procure DocuSign eSignature Software, Utilizing OMNIA cooperative contract no.
R240303 for a One-Year Term for a Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $145,180; CEQA
Status - Not a Project
7. Approval of an Extension to Building Permit 18000-00536 for 429 University Ave; CEQA
status – Mitigated Negative Declaration (ENV20718).
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 14 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
8. Approval of Professional Services Contracts with Concourse Tech Inc., Contract No.
C26195689, and Prospect Silicon Valley, Contract No. C26195690, to Support
Commercial Efficiency and Electrification Programs for a Term of Three (3) Years for a
Total Combined Not to Exceed Amount of $898,500; CEQA Status – Not a Project
9. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C27197243 with Euna Solutions,
Utilizing a TIPS Cooperative Contract, to Modernize the City’s Budget Development and
Publishing Software for a Five-Year Term, with Two One-Year Optional Extensions for a
Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,322,230. CEQA Status - Not a project.
10. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract C21180768 with Public Safety Innovation, Inc. to
Extend Term by One Year and Update the Schedule of Rates at No Additional Not-to-
Exceed Financial Authority; CEQA Status - Not a project
11. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 3 to Contract Number C20176367 with LAZ Karp
Associates, LLC to Increase the Compensation by $713,311 for a revised total not-to-
exceed $3,035,596 and Extend the Term by 18 Months for the Parking Enforcement
Program for Residential Preferential Parking Districts; CEQA Status - Not a Project.
12. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to 14 Professional Services Contracts for GIS On-Call
Services: C26193271A with Lynx Technologies Inc, C26193271B with Seven Tablets Inc,
C26193271C with iSpatial Techno Solutions Inc, C26193271D with Geodesy, C26193271E
with UDC, C26193271F with NV5 Geospatial Inc, C26193271G with SSP Innovations,
C26193271H with Timmons Group, C26193271I with Infojini Inc, C26193271J with
Sybyte Technologies Inc, C26193271K with 360S2G, C26193271L with Enterprise Maps,
C26193271M with Farallon Geographics, C26193271N with Arini Geographics, to
increase the Not-to-Exceed Compensation by $2,000,000 and Extend the Term for One
Year; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
13. Approval of Contract Change Order No. 2 in the Amount of $1,000,000 to Contract No.
C23186274 with Monterey Mechanical Company for On-Call Emergency and Critical
Construction Services at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, for a Revised Not-To-
Exceed Amount of $4,000,000, and Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to Contract
No. S24190553 with Carollo Engineers Inc. for On-call Engineering Services at the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant to Increase Compensation by $995,000 for a
Revised Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,250,000, and to Extend the Contract Term
Through December 31, 2028; CEQA Status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section
15301
14. Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules and Regulations Numbers 02
(Definitions and Abbreviations), 03 (Description of Utility Services), 04 (Application for
Service), 05 (Service Contracts), 09 (Disconnection, Termination and Restoration of
Service), 10 (Meter Reading), 11 (Billing, Adjustments and Payment of Bills), 18 (Utility
Service and Facilities on Customer Premises, 20 (Special Electric Utility Regulations), 21
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 15 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
(Special Water Utility Regulations), 22 (Special Gas Utility Regulations), 23 (Special
Wastewater Utility Regulations), and Utility Rate Schedule C-4 (Residential Rate
Assistance Program), and Repealing Rule 15 (Metering Equipment); CEQA Status – Not a
Project
Consent Calendar Item Pulled for Discussion
4. Recommendation from Policy and Services Committee to City Council to Indefinitely
Defer Both Expansion of the Rental Registry Program to Properties with Two or Fewer
Units and Further Consideration of a Possible Rent Stabilization Ordinance. CEQA:
Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Mayor Veenker proposed a brief discussion of Item 4 to determine whether the matter could
be resolved without a more extensive hearing. City Manager Shikada noted that the discussion
would serve as an opportunity to test the Council's new procedure for considering whether a
pulled consent item could be addressed efficiently.
Mayor Veenker expressed appreciation for the work completed by staff and the P&S
Committee and stated support for delaying further consideration of the item. Concerns were
raised regarding an indefinite deferral and interest was shown in establishing conditions that
could trigger future consideration of rent stabilization policies. Mayor Veenker suggested
replacing the indefinite deferral with a 12-month deferral or allowing the matter to return
sooner at Council direction.
Vice Mayor Stone presented a proposed motion to replace the recommended indefinite
deferral with a 1-year deferral and to return the item to the P&S Committee for review and
consideration at that time. Vice Mayor Stone noted that the Committee had not discussed
potential criteria that could trigger future reconsideration of the issue, apologized, and
expressed support for revisiting the matter next year.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims agreed that the P&S Committee had not discussed criteria for
future reconsideration of the item and characterized that omission as an oversight. Support
was expressed for the proposed motion.
Councilmember Lu was not strongly opposed to expanding the Rental Registry Program to 1-2
unit properties and expressed support for using rental data to improve market transparency
and inform policy decisions. Councilmember Lu questioned whether additional information
regarding rent increases and compliance with existing tenant protection laws could be useful
and suggested that those topics be considered by the P&S Committee when the item returns
for review. Vice Mayor Stone agreed that those issues could be considered during a future
Committee discussion.
Mayor Veenker added that the Council could revisit the issue during its annual priority-setting
process if circumstances warrant earlier consideration and stated that the proposed 1-year
deferral would provide an opportunity for future review.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 16 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
Councilmember Burt questioned whether the motion language accurately reflected the
Council's intent, noting that the displayed wording continued to reference an indefinite
deferral. City Manager Shikada and City Clerk Ah Yun clarified that the language had not yet
been updated to incorporate the proposed amendment. Councilmembers and staff then
worked together to refine the motion language.
Councilmember Lu suggested that future review of the Rental Registry Program include
consideration of additional data transparency measures and enhancements to the public
dashboard. Vice Mayor Stone expressed general support for those concepts but noted concerns
regarding staff resources and workload. Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan
Lait explained that staff is still developing the rental registry dashboard and stated that more
detailed rental data could be discussed when the item returns to the P&S Committee.
Councilmember Lu indicated a desire to have those topics included in future discussion to
provide additional context for policy consideration.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lauing, to approve the staff
recommendation, as amended, by deferring for up to one year the expansion of the Rental
Registry Program and consideration of a local rent stabilization policy, and directing staff to
return to the Policy and Services Committee within one year for discussion of further analysis,
policy development, or preparation of a draft ordinance related to a local rent stabilization
policy, as well as consideration of a Rental Registry Dashboard to enhance transparency and
public access to rental housing data.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
City Manager Comments
City Manager Ed Shikada announced several upcoming community events, including the ribbon
cutting for the Downtown teen center and La Comida on June 3, the annual Citywide Yard Sale
on June 7 (link), and the inaugural Palo Alto Pride event at King Plaza on June 8. An update was
provided regarding construction along Embarcadero Road between Emerson and High Streets,
which is scheduled to begin June 8 and continue through mid-August as part of Council-directed
safety improvements. City Manager Shikada then reviewed upcoming Council agenda items,
including June 8 with the Urban Water Management Plan, Cubberley actions, and the San
Antonio Corridor Plan; and June 15 with budget and rates adoption and the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan. A reminder was provided that August Council meetings will be
held on August 10, 17, and 24 and it was noted that the Crescent Park Traffic Calming item is
currently scheduled for the first meeting in August.
[Council took a 21-minute break]
Action Items
15. Adoption of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-
2027 Annual Action Plan; and Approving Use of CDBG Funds for FY 2026-2027 as
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 17 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
Recommended by the Human Relations Commission. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).
Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan Lait noted that the staff report was
included in the agenda packet and indicated that staff was available to answer questions. It was
suggested proceeding directly to public comments and Council questions.
Mayor Veenker expressed support for waiving the staff presentation absent any objections
from the Council.
Public Comment:
1. Melanie F., representing Upwards, thanked the City for supporting in-home childcare
providers through the Boost program and described the recent expansion of the
program to include Boost and Learn, which adds an online learning and resource
platform. The commenter reported that, with CDBG funding, the program partnered
with 11 local childcare providers, created 3 teaching assistant positions, and helped
participants increase revenue by approximately 40 percent. Support was expressed for
the Human Relations Commission's funding recommendation, which would allow the
program to continue serving local providers and families. The commenter stated that
the program helps improve the financial sustainability of childcare businesses while
expanding access to licensed childcare and indicated that future funding needs may be
reduced if the current request is approved.
Vice Mayor Stone moved approval of the staff and Human Relations Commission
recommendations. It was noted that CDBG funding allocations are governed by established
program requirements and confidence was voiced for the review conducted by staff and the
Human Relations Commission. Appreciation was expressed for the work completed.
Councilmember Burt seconded the motion.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked whether CDBG Grant funding could be used to support
safe parking programs given the City's ongoing efforts to address vehicle habitation. Senior
Housing Specialist Leif Christiansen explained that safe parking programs could potentially be
funded through the public services category, which is capped at 15 percent of the City's
allocation and is highly competitive. It was noted that CDBG funding currently supports services
for unhoused individuals through programs such as the Opportunity Center and that most
CDBG funding is directed toward housing rehabilitation and infrastructure projects under
federal program requirements. In response to a question regarding eligibility under the public
facilities and improvements category, Housing Specialist Christiansen stated that safe parking
programs would not typically qualify under that category but noted that future proposals could
be evaluated based on their specific details.
Councilmember Reckdahl noted that several organizations receiving funding recommendations
were new applicants and asked how they became involved in the program. Housing Specialist
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 18 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
Christiansen explained that staff expanded outreach efforts and encouraged interested
nonprofits to apply. It was noted that some organizations contacted the City directly and that
partnerships with existing service providers have helped increase awareness of the CDBG
program. Interest was expressed in continuing to expand outreach and participation in future
funding cycles.
Councilmember Reckdahl asked how capital improvement projects are selected for CDBG
funding and whether future projects are identified in advance. Housing Specialist Christiansen
explained that staff conducts outreach to potential applicants and evaluates eligible project
proposals as they are received. Capital project applications were limited this year, which
resulted in additional funding being directed toward ADA curb ramp improvements. An update
was provided on the Homekey recreation project, which was delayed due to environmental
review requirements and is expected to move forward in the upcoming fiscal year. Staff
continues to work with existing and prospective partners to identify future eligible projects.
Mayor Veenker asked why several new applicants received funding recommendations that
were substantially lower than the amounts requested. Housing Specialist Christiansen
explained that public service funding is limited by a federal cap and that total funding requests
routinely exceed available resources. The Human Relations Commission elected to distribute
funding among a larger number of organizations rather than concentrate funding among a
smaller number of recipients. It was conveyed that applicants are asked whether their
programs can continue operating if they receive less than their requested amount and that
many organizations rely on funding from multiple sources to support their services.
Mayor Veenker asked whether the recommended ADA curb ramp funding was tied to a specific
location and questioned whether such improvements would otherwise be funded through the
City's capital program. Housing Specialist Christiansen explained that Public Works is identifying
locations through its planning process and that the funding could be used for ADA curb ramp
improvements throughout the City. It was stated that CDBG funds are often used to
supplement such projects and that unallocated federal funds must be spent or returned.
Interest was expressed in expanding outreach to encourage additional applications for eligible
housing and community development projects in future funding cycles.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt, to:
1. Adopt the draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2027 Annual Action Plan (Attachment A) and the
associated resolution (Attachment B) allocating Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding for FY 2026-2027;
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the FY 2026-2027 CDBG application to fund the
FY 2026-2027 Annual Action Plan (AAP) and any other necessary documents concerning
the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and
commitment of funds;
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 19 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
3. Authorize staff to submit the FY 2026-2027 AAP to U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) by the extended deadline of August 16, 2026.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
16. Outdoor Activation Standards, Pre-Approved Parklet Plans and Public Space Design
Concept for the Car-Free Portion of California Avenue; and FIRST READ: Adopt an
Ordinance Amending the Sign Code to Streamline Permitting of Signs in Conjunction
with a Parklet; CEQA Status - Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
Economic Development Manager Alex Andrade introduced the proposed outdoor activation
standards and pre-approved parklet plans for California Avenue. Manager Andrade noted that
the proposal advances implementation of the City's Economic Development Strategy by
supporting outdoor dining and activation of commercial districts and has previously been
reviewed by the ARB. Manager Andrade stated that, if approved, implementation funding
would be incorporated into a Public Works contract scheduled for Council consideration on
June 15.
Assistant to the City Manager Bruce Fukuji stated that the proposal represents the next step in
implementing the Council's vision for California Avenue and highlighted previous efforts,
including the permanent street closure, bicycle improvements, signage and branding initiatives,
and development of street design concepts. Staff worked closely with the ARB, which
unanimously supported the outdoor activation standards and pre-approved parklet plans in
April. Indicators of increased economic activity on California Avenue were highlighted, including
reduced commercial vacancy rates and growth in sales tax and food sales revenue. Food and
beverage businesses account for a significant share of California Avenue sales tax revenue.
Outdoor dining, gathering spaces, and street activation were identified as important
contributors to the district's economic vitality. The proposed outdoor activation program was
developed through stakeholder engagement, review of comparable projects, and collaboration
with the ARB. The standards are intended to support economic vitality by expanding
opportunities for outdoor commercial activity, streamlining permitting, and providing a range
of investment options for businesses. The standards would allow outdoor seating capacity
comparable to or greater than existing conditions and could accommodate pre-approved
parklets for approximately 19 restaurants. Three pre-approved parklet designs were presented
and the standardized plans were described as a way to simplify implementation while
supporting year-round outdoor dining and an enhanced pedestrian environment.
Assistant Fukuji presented a public space concept for California Avenue that would replace the
previously considered 2-way bicycle lane concept. The proposal uses thermoplastic striping and
surface treatments to encourage slower bicycle speeds without dedicated bike lane markings.
Staff consulted with the Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired and incorporated
accessibility features, including tactile directional indicators. The concept illustrates how
outdoor dining and pre-approved parklets could be accommodated within the public space and
includes consolidated bicycle parking locations, while allowing businesses to retain existing
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 20 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
bicycle parking if desired. The presentation concluded with a summary of the proposed outdoor
activation standards, pre-approved parklet plans, and sign ordinance amendments. The
proposed sign code changes would allow certain parklet signs and sandwich board signs
without ARB review or a separate sign permit. Next steps would include a second reading of the
sign ordinance anticipated in August and Council consideration of funding for California Avenue
paving improvements scheduled for June 15. If approved, businesses could begin installing pre-
approved parklets following completion of the paving work. Future efforts will focus on refining
the public space design concept and evaluating opportunities to remove barriers that limit
outdoor dining activity.
Councilmember Burt expressed support for the proposed approach to bicycle circulation on
California Avenue and stated that the growth of high-speed e-bikes has changed the safety
considerations associated with shared bicycle and pedestrian spaces. Support was voiced for
maintaining California Avenue as a bicycle destination while limiting its function as a through
route and interest was expressed in improving bicycle connections along nearby routes such as
Cambridge Avenue and alleyways.
Councilmember Burt questioned whether repaving California Avenue was necessary and asked
whether the funding could be directed toward other improvements. Assistant Fukuji explained
that Public Works staff determined repaving would provide a more durable long-term solution
than removing pavement markings and resealing the roadway. Manager Andrade added that
the work is intended in part to improve the appearance of the corridor and would require
existing outdoor dining installations to be removed and reconstructed. City Manager Shikada
stated that staff would evaluate the most cost-effective approach if directed to proceed.
Additional clarification was provided that repaving would cost less than removing the existing
markings and resealing the street.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims echoed concerns regarding bicycle activity on California Avenue
and questioned whether nearby routes such as Cambridge Avenue would be more appropriate
for through bicycle traffic. Additional information was sought regarding feedback from the Vista
Center and how the proposed design would accommodate visually impaired users. Assistant
Fukuji explained that the Vista Center supported the car-free environment and the proposed
accessibility features, including tactile directional indicators. Additional feedback included
interest in design elements that would improve awareness of approaching bicycles through
changes in pavement texture and sound. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims expressed
appreciation for the work completed by staff.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked how the proposal accounts for planned housing
developments along California Avenue, including projects at 414 and 156 California Avenue.
Assistant Fukuji explained that the outdoor activation standards would apply to future
development projects and noted that the proposal for 414 California Avenue would require
modifications to accommodate emergency vehicle access and related improvements. Concerns
were expressed regarding the potential increase in pedestrian activity associated with future
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 21 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
housing development. Assistant Fukuji stated that additional residents would likely contribute
to activity and use of the California Avenue district.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims sought clarification regarding the colored lines shown in the
east and west public space concept illustrations. Assistant Fukuji explained that the elements
are thermoplastic surface treatments that can vary in width and color. Councilmember
Lythcott-Haims expressed appreciation for the concept.
Councilmember Lu was grateful for the work completed on the proposal and asked about the
implementation schedule. Assistant Fukuji explained that the proposed paving work could
occur this year, while the public space improvements would require future funding and would
be implemented at a later date, potentially spring 2027.
Councilmember Lu questioned the operational impacts of the bollards and emergency vehicle
access on California Avenue. Fire Chief Stephen Lindsey reported that a review of recent
emergency responses found no significant delays associated with the current configuration. It
was explained that response strategies vary depending on the incident and that personnel may
park outside the bollards and carry equipment into the area when appropriate. In response to
questions about alternative bollard designs and access configurations, Fire Chief Lindsey stated
that Fire Department operations are functioning effectively under the current design and that
emergency vehicles can access the corridor when necessary.
Councilmember Lauing requested additional information regarding merchant outreach and
whether businesses had expressed interest in the proposed parklet program at the anticipated
cost. Assistant Fukuji clarified that the illustrated buildout represented the maximum potential
buildout and not a projection of actual participation. Monthly outreach meetings had generally
attracted between 5 and 20 merchants and staff met individually with businesses upon request.
Councilmember Lauing suggested evaluating merchant interest further before proceeding
further with implementation.
Councilmember Lauing asked whether existing parklets could be retained if they comply with
the proposed standards. Assistant Fukuji explained that the standards are intended to
accommodate a range of investment levels and would allow reuse of certain existing parklet
elements, although some features would need to be upgraded to meet the new design
requirements. Support was expressed for the inclusion of operable weather screening to
provide flexibility for businesses.
Councilmember Lauing asked how the proposed parklet designs account for existing gas
infrastructure along California Avenue. Assistant Fukuji explained that setbacks are required
adjacent to gas mains and that parklets may be located over gas laterals if appropriate shutoff
valves are installed. City Manager Shikada added that staff has mapped the utility locations and
incorporated those constraints into the proposed layouts.
Mayor Veenker expressed support for the proposed parklet designs and agreed that additional
information regarding merchant interest would be helpful. Questions were raised regarding
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 22 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
emergency vehicle access within the car-free corridor. Fire Chief Lindsey explained that Fire
Department staff evaluated vehicle access, turning movements, and apparatus placement
throughout the corridor and worked closely with staff to ensure adequate setbacks and
emergency access routes. It was added that emergency vehicles carry keys needed to access
the bollards when necessary.
Mayor Veenker asked how compliance with parklet standards and clearance requirements
would be monitored. City Manager Shikada explained that the outdoor activation guidelines
establish expectations regarding furniture placement, design, and merchant responsibilities.
Concerns were expressed that improper use of the space could create public safety issues.
Manager Andrade stated that staff is coordinating with Public Works regarding enforcement
and development of consistent rules for the corridor. Support was expressed for continued
communication and implementation of the City's vision for California Avenue.
Mayor Veenker asked whether e-bikes are currently permitted on California Avenue and
whether restrictions could be considered in the future. City Manager Shikada confirmed that e-
bikes are currently allowed and recommended that broader bicycle management issues be
considered as a separate discussion. Mayor Veenker agreed that the topic should be addressed
at a future meeting.
Public Comment:
1. Charlie W., representing the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, expressed support for the
proposed outdoor activation guidelines and thanked staff and California Avenue
businesses for their work on the effort. The commenter stated that the guidelines and
pre-approved parklet designs would provide businesses with greater certainty to invest
in long-term outdoor dining improvements while creating a safer and more consistent
experience for visitors. Support was expressed for approval of the staff
recommendation.
2. Doria S. thanked the Council and staff for their work on California Avenue and stated
that the car-free street has become a valued community space that supports local
businesses. The commenter urged the City not to include a bicycle lane through the
center of the corridor, citing concerns regarding e-bikes and impacts on families, people
with disabilities, and other pedestrians. Concern was raised regarding how the proposed
thermoplastic design would function and appear. Support was expressed for shifting
bicycle traffic to routes such as Cambridge Avenue, which was noted as a planned
bicycle corridor.
3. Berry H., owner of Gamelandia, voiced support for the proposed outdoor dining
guidelines despite operating a business that would not directly benefit from them. The
commenter stated that the California Avenue closure has created a more vibrant and
walkable district and indicated that enhanced outdoor dining and future entertainment
opportunities would strengthen the overall business environment and benefit a wide
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 23 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
range of merchants. Concerns were expressed regarding increasing e-bike activity on Cal
Ave and support was expressed for exploring alternative bicycle routes other than
Cambridge Avenue.
4. Todd B., a resident of California Avenue, was supportive of the proposed outdoor
activation measures and stated that parklets have contributed to the success of
California Avenue. The commenter encouraged the City to move more quickly toward
implementation and provide businesses with certainty to make long-term investments.
Support was expressed for prioritizing pedestrians over bicycle traffic, citing concerns
regarding e-bike safety. The commenter encouraged continued outreach to residents in
addition to businesses and expressed enthusiasm for the future of California Avenue.
5. Leland W. (Zoom) expressed opposition to the continued closure of California Avenue
and urged the City to reopen the street to vehicle traffic. The commenter argued that
improvements in commercial occupancy are attributable to growth in the AI sector
rather than the street closure and questioned whether the project has produced the
anticipated community and economic benefits. Concerns were raised regarding public
expenditures associated with the project and the commenter stated that vehicle,
bicycle, pedestrian, and dining activity can coexist without a permanently closed street.
6. Michael (Zoom), owner of La Bodeguita del Medio restaurant, urged the Council to
reject the proposal and raised concerns regarding emergency vehicle access, response
times, and the absence of a finalized long-term vision for California Avenue. Questions
were raised regarding the level of business participation in the proposed parklet
program and whether the project would benefit the broader business district. The
commenter argued that additional funding should not be committed until outstanding
planning, safety, and City budget issues are resolved and expressed opposition to the
proposed bicycle improvements.
Councilmember Reckdahl sought clarification regarding the range of outdoor dining
configurations permitted under the proposed standards. Assistant Fukuji explained that
businesses could choose from a variety of options, including parklets, café seating areas, and
different types of barriers, with installations located adjacent to buildings or within the
roadway. Councilmember Reckdahl stated that providing a range of cost and design options
could encourage greater business participation.
Councilmember Reckdahl expressed support for the pre-approved parklet designs and
questioned the basis for the proposed 350-square-foot size limit, particularly for custom
parklets. City Manager Shikada explained that the limit is tied to fire, building, plumbing,
electrical, and other safety considerations and reflects previous Council direction intended to
maximize flexibility while avoiding additional regulatory requirements. Concerns were
expressed that the size restriction could limit opportunities for larger custom parklets. City
Manager Shikada responded that custom proposals could still be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis and emphasized that the standards are intended to balance flexibility with public safety
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 24 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
requirements. Councilmember Reckdahl referenced an alternative permitting approach used in
another jurisdiction for larger parklets.
Councilmember Burt expressed support for improving bicycle access to California Avenue
through measures such as enhanced bicycle parking and improvements to nearby routes,
including Cambridge Avenue. Support was expressed for allowing consideration of larger
custom parklets and questions were raised regarding the rationale for limiting individual
parklets to 350 square feet while permitting multiple parklets at a single location. City Manager
Shikada reiterated that the size limit originated from prior staff recommendations based on
safety and code considerations and stated that staff could revisit the issue and provide
additional analysis if directed by the Council. Councilmember Burt maintained that the impacts
associated with larger parklets should be evaluated based on total seating and overall use
rather than the size of an individual parklet.
Councilmember Burt emphasized the importance of improving alley access to California Avenue
from adjacent parking areas and noted that the issue has been discussed previously without
significant progress. Interest was expressed in ensuring that access improvements remain part
of future planning efforts.
Councilmember Lauing expressed support for prohibiting bicycle traffic on California Avenue
and maintaining the corridor as a pedestrian-oriented space. Support was further voiced for
improving bicycle access to the district through enhanced parking and alternative routes while
directing through bicycle traffic away from California Avenue. Concerns were cited regarding
pedestrian safety and conflicts between pedestrians and bicycles, particularly e-bikes.
Councilmember Lauing expressed concern that the proposed enforcement and maintenance
provisions lack sufficient specificity regarding compliance expectations. Preference was stated
for holding businesses responsible for maintaining outdoor activation spaces and in providing
clearer standards and enforcement criteria to avoid future disputes.
Councilmember Lauing emphasized the importance of maintaining a long-term vision for
California Avenue and asked when topics such as landscaping, signage, and lighting
improvements would be considered. City Manager Shikada responded that funding is not
currently available for those enhancements and that the proposal focuses on improvements
that can be implemented in the near term. Basic wayfinding signage is currently being
developed for key gateway locations. Councilmember Lauing suggested that funding proposed
for pavement improvements could potentially be redirected toward wayfinding and questioned
whether the paving work is necessary at this time. City Manager Shikada responded that
revisiting the paving decision could require reconsideration of elements of the overall
implementation approach.
Councilmember Lu expressed interest in exploring more flexible approval pathways for custom
parklet designs in the future and noted that larger, more creative parklets can contribute to a
district's character. Regarding bicycle circulation, preference was voiced for the proposed
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 25 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
approach, with the observation that enforcement challenges are primarily associated with a
small number of unsafe riders rather than bicycle traffic generally. Councilmember Lu stated
that most cyclists use California Avenue responsibly and suggested that additional restrictions
may not effectively address problematic behavior.
Councilmember Lu was concerned that repaving California Avenue could establish a more
permanent condition before the City determines how to achieve its longer-term vision for Cal
Ave. Interest was expressed in delaying the paving work until it is necessary or until funding is
available for additional improvements. City Manager Shikada noted that a future streetscape
project would require funding far beyond the proposed $300,000 paving allocation.
Councilmember Lu suggested exploring modest interim improvements, such as addressing
pedestrian-oriented design issues and adding amenities, and reiterated support for approving
the proposal while continuing to pursue a more ambitious long-term vision for California
Avenue.
Mayor Veenker sought clarification regarding the cost of repaving California Avenue compared
with alternatives that would remove existing roadway markings without repaving. Assistant
Fukuji reiterated that the costs are comparable and explained that removing the existing traffic
markings would itself be a significant expense.
Vice Mayor Stone moved the staff recommendation with a modification directing staff to
pursue a bicycle-free design for California Avenue. Vice Mayor Stone expressed appreciation for
staff's responsiveness to feedback received during discussions at the Economic Development
Committee and throughout development of the proposal.
Councilmember Lauing seconded the motion and encouraged staff to conduct additional
outreach to assess merchant interest in the proposed parklet options and associated cost
ranges. City Manager Shikada requested clarification on that instruction and Councilmember
Lauing indicated that the suggestion was not intended as a modification to the motion but
rather as a recommendation to help gauge business participation and support.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Council Member Lauing, to:
1. Approve the Outdoor Activation Standards and encroachment permit requirements for
the car-free portion of California Avenue as documented in Attachment A.
2. Approve the Pre-approved Parklet Plans with standardized parklet designs for California
Avenue summarized in Attachment B.
3. FIRST READ: An ordinance amending the Sign Code (PAMC section 16.20.160) to allow
parklet permittees to post certain types of parklet signs in compliance with the Outdoor
Activation permit standards in lieu of the Sign Code’s default review process; see
Attachment C.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 26 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
4. Approve the proposed public space design concept outlined in Attachment D and direct
staff to modify the design to be a bike-free design.
MOTION PASSED: 6-1, Lu no
[Council took a 7-minute break]
17. Receive Update and Provide Direction to Staff on the Implementation of Senate Bill 79
(SB 79) and the Work Related to the Downtown Housing Plan. Adoption of Two
Temporary Ordinances Implementing SB 79, Adopting a Transit Oriented Development
Combining District, Excluding Certain Sites from Government Code Section 65912.157,
and Authorizing the Planning and Development Services Director to Make
Corresponding Updates to the Zone Map. CEQA Status: Exempt Under Government
Code section 65912.161(c)(2).
Prior to consideration of the item, Councilmember Reckdahl recused himself due to the
proximity of his residence to the San Antonio Caltrain station. Councilmember Lu similarly
recused himself due to the proximity of his residence to the California Avenue Caltrain station.
Mayor Veenker noted that a quorum remained present.
Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan Lait introduced Senior Planner Vishnu
Krishnan, who has been leading work on the Downtown Housing Plan and SB 79
implementation, and noted that staff would provide a shortened presentation.
Senior Planner Vishnu Krishnan presented an overview of SB 79 and its implications for the
Downtown Housing Plan. Background was provided regarding prior Council discussions and the
work of the Council ad hoc committee. It was explained that the purpose of the item is to
review SB 79 implementation options, consider temporary ordinances, and provide direction on
future work related to the Downtown Housing Plan. A series of slides summarized SB 79
requirements, including transit-oriented development (TOD) standards, site exclusions,
alternative planning options, and projected development capacity near the City's 3 Caltrain
stations. Maps and data slides identified eligible areas, exclusion categories, acreage, and
housing projections for the University Avenue, California Avenue, and San Antonio station
areas. Four implementation approaches were outlined, ranging from allowing SB 79 to take
effect without local action to preparing a full alternative TOD plan. Options for the Downtown
Housing Plan included focusing on development standards only, completing the full plan, or
discontinuing the effort. Staff and the Council ad hoc committee recommended adoption of 2
temporary ordinances: one excluding qualifying locally designated historic resources from
applicable SB 79 standards through January 31, 2032, and another establishing development
standards for TOD-eligible parcels at 50 percent of SB 79 standards through a TOD combining
district. A slide illustrated a feasibility analysis for a TOD-eligible R1 site near the California
Avenue station under the proposed 50 percent standards scenario. Proposed next steps
included adoption of interim urgency ordinances, preparation of permanent ordinances for PTC
review, and continued work on the Downtown Housing Plan.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 27 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
Director Lait added that a supplemental memorandum had been released correcting
attachments included with the staff report. Clarification was provided that the ordinances
under consideration are temporary ordinances rather than urgency ordinances and that
additional corrections were identified in the memorandum. Director Lait further noted that
numerous public comments had been received and were available to the Council.
Councilmember Lauing, speaking as a member of the ad hoc committee, explained that the
recommendation reflects the implementation options available under SB 79 and the City's
staffing and resource constraints. Support was expressed for TOD and continued advancement
of housing near transit, noting that those objectives are incorporated into the City's Housing
Element and Downtown Housing Plan efforts. Councilmember Lauing stated that the
recommended approach would allow the City to utilize available provisions of SB 79, including
preparation of a potential alternative TOD plan and protection of qualifying historic resources,
while continuing work on the Downtown Housing Plan. Concerns were raised regarding the
staffing and workload demands associated with implementing the Housing Element and SB 79.
Clarification was provided that adoption of the proposed ordinances would not preclude future
high-density housing projects or use of existing development incentive programs.
Councilmember Burt observed that the implementation options under SB 79 involve significant
tradeoffs and stated that the staff report provides a useful framework for evaluating those
choices. Support was expressed for continuing work on the Downtown Housing Plan and for
considering related planning efforts, including potential expansion of the El Camino Focus Area.
Several clarifications were offered regarding the staff report, including the City's ability to
exempt qualifying historic resources and prepare an alternative TOD plan. Councilmember Burt
further highlighted the scale of development that could be permitted under SB 79 in lower-
density neighborhoods and noted uncertainty regarding future redevelopment patterns.
Additional observations were offered regarding redevelopment potential on larger parcels,
including public facilities and properties adjacent to commercial corridors. Councilmember Burt
concluded by expressing interest in hearing feedback from other Councilmembers regarding the
ad hoc committee's recommendations.
Public Comment:
1. Erica S., development manager for the project at 414 California Avenue, urged the
Council to reconsider the proposed temporary ordinance, arguing that it would
significantly reduce development potential for properties near single-family
neighborhoods and along urban corridors. The commenter stated that mixed-use
projects require sufficient residential density to support financially viable ground-floor
retail and placemaking uses. Concerns were expressed that alternative entitlement
pathways can be lengthy and uncertain, reducing the benefits of the streamlined
development process intended under State housing laws.
2. Scott L. G., representing the ownership of 414 California Avenue, opposed the proposed
ordinance and argued that it would reduce development potential along California
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 28 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
Avenue while undermining the mixed-use character the City seeks to preserve. The
commenter contended that limiting residential floor area could discourage ground-floor
retail by reducing the housing density needed to support financially viable mixed-use
projects. Concerns were voiced regarding the ordinance's consistency with SB 79 and
potential legal challenges. The Council was urged to reject the proposal and instead
pursue an approach that supports transit-oriented housing development while
maintaining active ground-floor commercial uses.
3. Berry H., owner of Gamelandia, expressed concerns regarding the proposed
implementation of SB 79 and urged the City to exempt core commercial corridors such
as California Avenue from the proposed 50 percent reduction in development
standards. The commenter argued that transit-served business districts are appropriate
locations for additional housing and that broad restrictions could hinder planned
housing projects and weaken the long-term vitality of commercial areas. It was stated
that the City can protect neighborhoods and historic resources while supporting housing
growth in commercial corridors. Further concerns were raised that the proposal may be
inconsistent with the City's efforts to promote housing development and qualify for
state housing-related funding opportunities.
4. Triana C., a senior planner in the Land Use and Development Review Team at Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority, stated that VTA has been closely monitoring
implementation of SB 79 and participating in countywide discussions regarding the
legislation. The commenter acknowledged the complexity of SB 79 implementation and
noted that VTA has been providing information sharing and technical assistance related
to the law. VTA's interest in continued collaboration with Palo Alto was expressed and
the agency offered to serve as a resource as the City advances implementation efforts.
5. Jeff L. expressed support for the approach recommended by staff and the ad hoc
committee but raised questions regarding specific provisions of the proposed ordinance.
The commenter suggested that modifications to setback and daylight plane standards
may be unnecessary under SB 79 and questioned why those standards were adjusted
while site coverage standards were not. It was further recommended that the proposed
50 percent ordinance should establish maximum densities at one-half of the densities
permitted under SB 79.
6. Chao L. (Zoom) expressed support for Palo Alto's pursuit of a Prohousing Designation
and urged the Council to consider the regional housing shortage when evaluating
implementation of SB 79. The commenter encouraged the City to align its approach with
neighboring jurisdictions and expressed opposition to utilizing the 50 percent
implementation option.
7. Scott O. (Zoom) encouraged the Council to focus on the merits of the proposed SB 79
implementation strategy. Questions were raised regarding the basis for treating the
matter as an emergency given the length of time since SB 79 was enacted. The
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 29 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
commenter referenced an alternative approach proposed by Palo Alto Forward that
would allow SB 79 standards to take effect in portions of the City while additional
planning occurs elsewhere. Support was expressed for allowing greater density in core
transit-oriented areas and concerns were raised that delaying implementation could
result in less cohesive development patterns over time.
8. Michael Q. (Zoom) expressed agreement with comments regarding the legal basis for an
emergency ordinance and referenced correspondence submitted by housing advocacy
organizations questioning the approach. The commenter argued that previous efforts to
limit state involvement in local housing decisions ultimately reduced the City's options
and local control. Support was expressed for addressing SB 79 implementation openly
and in good faith, with the view that such an approach would lead to better long-term
outcomes and greater local flexibility.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims expressed support for the proposed exemption for historic
resources and asked how adoption of the proposed 50 percent SB 79 standards would affect
potential projects at 414 and 156 California Avenue. Director Lait explained that no application
has been submitted for 414 California Avenue and that 156 California Avenue is proceeding
through a separate Housing Element process and that the proposed ordinances would not
affect those projects.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims sought clarification regarding the distinction between the
temporary ordinances under consideration and the urgency ordinances proposed for June 15.
Questions were raised regarding the basis for making findings necessary to support an urgency
ordinance. Director Lait explained that the temporary ordinances would return for second
reading on June 15 and that urgency ordinances could additionally be considered at that time if
directed by the Council. It was conveyed that additional study is needed to evaluate
infrastructure capacity to support future development under SB 79. Assistant City Attorney
Albert Yang described the legal standards applicable to urgency ordinances and stated that
concerns regarding infrastructure capacity and service demands could support such findings.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims questioned how those concerns apply in areas currently
designated for higher-density development. Assistant City Attorney Yang responded that recent
housing projects have required detailed evaluation of utility, stormwater, and other
infrastructure capacity issues.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims expressed concern that applying the proposed 50 percent SB
79 standards citywide may not adequately distinguish between lower-density neighborhoods
and areas where the City is currently pursuing higher-density development, including portions
of California Avenue, El Camino Real, Downtown, and San Antonio Road. Interest was expressed
in exempting those areas from the proposed reduction. Director Lait responded that the
ordinance would not reduce existing development standards in areas where higher-density
housing is currently encouraged and explained that the proposal would primarily increase
development capacity in areas that do not currently meet the 50 percent SB 79 threshold.
Planning efforts for additional housing in the Downtown area remain ongoing.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 30 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked whether the City's pursuit of a Prohousing Designation is
consistent with the proposed approach to SB 79 implementation. Director Lait stated that he
does not view the 2 efforts as inconsistent, explaining that the Prohousing Designation reflects
actions the City has taken and plans to take to support housing production. It was reiterated
that the proposed interim approach to SB 79 would provide time to study potential impacts
associated with increased development capacity, including effects on utilities, public safety
services, and schools, before full implementation of the law. Director Lait emphasized that the
appropriate balance between those considerations and housing production objectives is
ultimately a policy decision for the Council.
Vice Mayor Stone asked whether SB 79 includes affordability requirements if the City takes no
action. Senior Planner Krishnan confirmed that SB 79 contains affordability requirements but
noted that Palo Alto's existing affordability requirements would apply where they are more
stringent.
Vice Mayor Stone sought confirmation that adoption of the ad hoc committee's
recommendation would not reduce existing development standards in areas where the City is
currently encouraging higher-density housing, including Downtown, California Avenue, El
Camino Real, and San Antonio Road. Director Lait confirmed that the proposed ordinance
would only increase development capacity for sites that do not currently meet SB 79's 50
percent threshold.
Vice Mayor Stone asked whether staff or the ad hoc committee considered allowing SB 79 to
take effect in areas where the City has previously completed planning efforts supporting
increased density. Director Lait stated that such discussions generally occurred in the context of
a potential alternative TOD plan rather than specific geographic carve-outs. Councilmember
Burt noted that existing development standards in areas such as the San Antonio corridor and
El Camino Real are generally consistent with, and in some cases exceed, SB 79 standards.
Support was expressed for using the flexibility provided under SB 79 to develop a more tailored
TOD strategy while continuing work on the Downtown Housing Plan and other planning efforts.
Councilmember Lauing stated that the recommendation reflects options expressly provided
under State law and emphasized continued support for housing development in areas such as
California Avenue. Vice Mayor Stone stated that the 50 percent implementation option appears
consistent with State law and does not appear to conflict with the City's pursuit of a Prohousing
Designation. Concerns were expressed about ensuring that adoption of the interim ordinance
does not delay future planning efforts or consideration of additional housing capacity. Director
Lait responded that planning efforts in the Downtown and San Antonio areas would continue
and could potentially support development beyond SB 79 standards where appropriate. It was
noted that California Avenue does not currently have an active area plan and could be studied
in the future. Vice Mayor Stone expressed interest in accelerating planning efforts for California
Avenue while continuing to evaluate infrastructure capacity and related constraints.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 31 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
Director Lait additionally noted that adoption of the recommended ordinance would require
the affirmative vote of 4 Councilmembers. City Attorney Christopher Jensen confirmed that
requirement.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims sought additional clarification regarding how the proposed
ordinance would apply in areas where existing zoning currently permits greater development
intensity. Assistant City Attorney Yang, Director Lait, and City Attorney Jensen explained that
the ordinance would not supersede more permissive underlying zoning standards and would
only increase development capacity where existing regulations do not meet the proposed SB 79
thresholds. Staff further clarified that the proposal would generally have limited effect on
existing California Avenue development standards, which are more permissive in several
respects, while increasing allowable residential floor area in mixed-use projects.
Mayor Veenker sought clarification regarding the duration and purpose of the proposed
temporary and permanent ordinances. Director Lait explained that the City would need to
complete its local planning and ordinance adoption process before 2032, after which SB 79
standards would take effect unless the City adopts an approved alternative TOD plan.
Questions were raised regarding the timeline for preparing such a plan. Director Lait indicated
that a TOD alternative plan would be a significant undertaking and is not anticipated in the near
term given current workload and priorities. Mayor Veenker expressed support for the proposed
historic resource exemption but questioned whether a uniform 50 percent implementation
approach appropriately reflects differences among station areas. Concerns were raised that
areas such as California Avenue may warrant a more tailored approach given existing planning
objectives and development patterns. Interest was expressed in exploring modifications that
would preserve the proposed framework while exempting selected corridors where the City has
identified opportunities for additional housing growth.
Councilmember Lauing stated that preparation of a TOD alternative plan would likely require
several years and noted that the City has existing zoning and programs in place to meet its
current Housing Element obligations. Councilmember Lauing distinguished implementation of
SB 79 from broader discussions regarding housing growth beyond State requirements and
emphasized that the Council retains the ability to consider additional upzoning in the future.
Concerns were expressed about introducing location-specific exceptions to the proposed
ordinance during the current discussion.
Councilmember Burt emphasized that the City has undertaken significant upzoning efforts in
recent years and is actively working to accommodate more than 6,000 housing units through
the current Housing Element cycle. Support was expressed for the recommended approach,
which was described as allowing additional development capacity while providing time to
develop a more deliberate TOD planning strategy. Councilmember Burt further noted that
several historic and lower-density neighborhoods fall within SB 79 station areas and expressed
concern that the legislation's historic resource exemptions may not fully protect those areas. It
was further stated that the City could continue to consider targeted upzoning efforts while
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 32 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
developing a TOD alternative plan. Councilmember Burt moved approval of staff
recommendations 1 through 6.
Councilmember Lauing seconded the motion and reiterated that the Council retains the ability
to consider additional upzoning in the future if desired. Councilmember Lauing stated that,
based on current projections, additional upzoning is not necessary to meet the City's Housing
Element obligations.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims proposed a friendly amendment to revise language in
Attachment C, Item I, to state that SB 79 would create incentives for redevelopment in TOD
areas "that the City has not already identified as being suitable locations for higher-density
development" and could allow densities that create unanticipated infrastructure demands. City
Attorney Jensen and Assistant City Attorney Yang indicated that the proposed revision
presented no legal concerns. Councilmember Burt and Councilmember Lauing accepted the
amendment.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims proposed a second amendment to the TOD Combining District
ordinance that would exempt the Downtown Housing Plan Assessment Area, California Avenue,
portions of El Camino Real, San Antonio Road, and several other identified corridors and
streets. The amendment would apply the district to all TOD sites except specified locations,
including "sites with frontages on Cal Ave between El Camino and Caltrain" and "sites with
frontages on El Camino." Councilmember Burt opposed the amendment, stating that it would
introduce significant zoning changes without the analysis, public review, and evaluation of
infrastructure, transportation, and compatibility impacts that accompanied previous upzoning
efforts in areas such as the El Camino Real and San Antonio corridors. Councilmember Lauing
agreed that the proposed exemptions could be considered through a separate future process
and noted that broader Council participation would be possible outside the constraints of the
current item. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated that the intent was to allow SB 79 to
proceed in regions of the City that have largely been planned to be higher density while
preserving the proposed 50 percent reduction in areas the City is seeking to protect. It was
further stated that the amendment would make the City's approach more explicit by identifying
where the 50 percent reduction would and would not apply.
Mayor Veenker expressed interest in exempting selected corridors, including California Avenue,
El Camino Real, and San Antonio Road, from the proposed 50 percent TOD standards, stating
that those areas are generally consistent with the City's housing planning objectives and could
demonstrate continued support for housing production. Councilmember Burt reiterated
concerns that modifying the proposal during the meeting could have unintended effects on
existing and future development projects and that additional analysis would be appropriate
before making such changes. Councilmember Lauing questioned the need to consider
additional upzoning immediately, noting that the City has planned for substantial housing
growth and that a broader discussion could occur in the future with full Council participation. A
discussion followed regarding the timing of potential future upzoning efforts. Mayor Veenker
expressed concern that deferring consideration could delay implementation for several years,
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 33 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
while Councilmember Lauing stated that additional upzoning could be considered on a future
timeline following further analysis and Council discussion.
City Manager Shikada suggested that staff provide input regarding potential next steps and
opportunities for future discussion. Director Lait noted that the proposed ordinance would
return to the Council for second reading on June 15 and that a permanent ordinance would
subsequently be reviewed through the PTC and Council process. It was conveyed that the ideas
discussed by the Council regarding potential corridor-specific exemptions could be incorporated
into that future review and evaluated through a public process with PTC input. It was estimated
that such a discussion could occur within approximately 6 to 12 months, depending on staff
workload and scheduling priorities.
Vice Mayor Stone expressed support for the timeline outlined by staff and stated that the
proposed corridor-specific exemptions would represent a significant departure from the
recommendation under consideration. Concerns were expressed about making such changes
without additional public review and broader Council participation. Support was expressed for
continuing the discussion through the PTC and Council process over the next 6 to 12 months,
with additional opportunities for public input.
Mayor Veenker asked whether future discussions regarding potential TOD exemptions would
continue to be affected by Councilmember recusal requirements. City Attorney Jensen stated
that one Councilmember has sought advice from the FPPC regarding potential participation in
future discussions and noted that there may be opportunities to structure future discussions in
a way that allows broader Council participation. Questions were raised regarding whether
separate consideration of specific geographic areas could affect conflict determinations. City
Attorney Jensen responded that participation would depend on the properties affected by a
proposal rather than whether the action is considered as part of SB 79 implementation or a
separate zoning amendment.
Councilmember Burt stated that the City is likely to consider additional targeted upzoning
efforts before completion of a broader TOD alternative plan, including areas under study
through the Downtown Housing Plan and potentially other focus areas. Support was expressed
for the approach outlined by Director Lait, which would allow consideration of corridor-specific
upzoning through a future planning process. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked whether
that concept could be incorporated into the motion. Director Lait and staff assisted the Council
in refining the motion language accordingly.
Mayor Veenker expressed interest in prioritizing consideration of California Avenue and asked
whether staff anticipated evaluating all of the discussed corridors together. Director Lait
responded that staff could present the identified corridors to the PTC with analysis and
recommendations regarding which areas may be appropriate for additional housing capacity
and which may warrant further caution. It was stated that the resulting recommendation to the
Council would not be an all-or-nothing proposal and could identify specific areas for
advancement.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 34 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims reiterated support for exempting California Avenue from the
proposed 50 percent TOD standards, stating that the corridor is the type of transit-served area
where the State intends to encourage additional housing. Mayor Veenker expressed support for
that concept.
Councilmember Burt repeated his opposition to exempt California Avenue from the proposed
50 percent TOD standards at the meeting, stating that changes of that magnitude would
normally be evaluated through a public planning process with PTC review and community
input. Concerns were expressed that the potential implications of allowing substantially greater
development intensity had not been adequately evaluated and that additional analysis should
occur before considering such changes.
Mayor Veenker stated that the Council was attempting to develop a thoughtful approach to SB
79 implementation rather than allowing the law to take effect without local action.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated that the intent was not to reject the proposal but to
ensure that areas appropriate for additional housing receive further consideration.
Councilmember Burt proposed amending the motion to direct future review of potential TOD
modifications "with a particular focus to the California Avenue area." Councilmember Lythcott-
Haims and Councilmember Lauing expressed support for that wording.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked whether the motion could additionally direct
consideration of a potential extension of the El Camino Focus Area toward California Avenue as
part of future PTC review. Councilmember Burt expressed support for including that concept.
Councilmember Lauing questioned the need for additional specificity but indicated that he
would not oppose the amendment.
Mayor Veenker proposed adding language to the motion clarifying that California Avenue and
the El Camino Real corridor were being specifically identified because they have been discussed
by the Council as appropriate locations for additional higher-density housing. Councilmember
Burt and Councilmember Lauing agreed to the amendment.
MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Lauing, to:
1. Receive an update on the approaches for the implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 79
(2025) and work related to the Downtown Housing Plan;
2. Introduce a temporary ordinance (Attachment B) excluding historic resources
designated on the City’s local register as of January 1, 2025, from the development
standards otherwise applicable under SB 79, through one year following adoption of the
City’s 7th Housing Element;
3. Introduce a temporary ordinance (Attachment C) establishing development standards
for all transit-oriented development (TOD) eligible parcels subject to SB 79 at 50 percent
of the otherwise allowable development capacity authorized under State law, and
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 35 of 35
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 06/01/2026
simultaneously exempting those properties from default SB 79 standards through one
year following adoption of the City’s 7th Cycle Housing Element;
a. Amend Attachment C, Section 1 Findings & Declarations, Section I:
“The City Council finds and declares that the implementation of Government Code
section 65912.157 on July 1, 2026 will create significant incentive for redevelopment
of properties in the TOD zones that the City has not already identified as being
suitable locations for higher-density development, allow at densities that would
create unanticipated strain on public infrastructure and cause additional points of
conflict between vehicles and bicycles or pedestrians in the effected areas. The
rezoning and exclusion actions set forth in this ordinance would reduce these
impacts for a temporary period, during which the City may plan for increased
demands on infrastructure and transportation resources. Accordingly, this ordinance
is necessary as an emergency measure pursuant to PAMC section 2.04.270 to
preserve the public peace, health, or safety.”
4. Direct staff to return with interim urgency versions of the above ordinances to be
introduced and adopted on June 15, 2026, when the above ordinances are agendized
for second reading.
5. Direct staff to prepare permanent ordinances to be presented to the Planning and
Transportation Commission, incorporating the provisions of the interim ordinances and
any additional provisions necessary and beneficial in implementation of SB 79.
6. Direct staff to continue work to advance and complete the Downtown Housing Plan and
amend the scope of work as appropriate to take into consideration implementation of
SB 79.
7. Direct staff to consider the recommendations outlined in the Palo Alto Forward Letter
with particular focus to the California Avenue area including El Camino Real vicinity of
California Avenue that Council has identified as suitable for higher-density development,
when developing the permanent ordinance for review by the Planning & Transportation
Commission, and to return to Council within 6 to 12 months.
MOTION PASSED: 5-0-2, Lu and Reckdahl recused
AMENDMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND
SECONDER
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:19 a.m.